Journal of pediatric orthopedics · 2024
Tibialis Anterior Tendon Transfer for Clubfoot Deformity: Cuboid Versus Lateral Cuneiform.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Craft Madison, Calhoon Gage, Lewis Thomas R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tibialis anterior tendon transfer in relapsing clubfoot deformity is a well-known treatment option for dynamic forefoot supination and adduction deformities. The tibialis anterior tendon can be anchored to the lateral cuneiform or the cuboid. A complication of this surgery is overcorrection to a flatfoot deformity or undercorrection that maintains the clubfoot deformity. We compared reoperation rates and clinical outcomes between these 2 groups.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed from 2005 to 2020. The primary outcome was repeat operation. The secondary outcome included clinical appearance scores described by Garceau and Palmer.
RESULTS: There were 114 clubfeet (111 patients) treated in our study. Of them, 67 (58.8%) had a transfer to the lateral cuneiform, whereas 47 (41.2%) had a transfer to the cuboid. Nine patients had reoperations which included 4 (44.4%) in the lateral cuneiform group and 5 (55.6%) in the cuboid group which was not statistically significant ( P =0.485). Clinical appearance scores revealed significantly better clinical appearance in the lateral cuneiform group after surgery compared with the cuboid group ( P =0.0172).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically significant differences in reoperation rates between transfers to the lateral cuneiform versus the cuboid. We did find better clinical appearance in the lateral cuneiform group after surgery compared with the cuboid group.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective comparative study.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed from 2005 to 2020. The primary outcome was repeat operation. The secondary outcome included clinical appearance scores described by Garceau and Palmer.
RESULTS: There were 114 clubfeet (111 patients) treated in our study. Of them, 67 (58.8%) had a transfer to the lateral cuneiform, whereas 47 (41.2%) had a transfer to the cuboid. Nine patients had reoperations which included 4 (44.4%) in the lateral cuneiform group and 5 (55.6%) in the cuboid group which was not statistically significant ( P =0.485). Clinical appearance scores revealed significantly better clinical appearance in the lateral cuneiform group after surgery compared with the cuboid group ( P =0.0172).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically significant differences in reoperation rates between transfers to the lateral cuneiform versus the cuboid. We did find better clinical appearance in the lateral cuneiform group after surgery compared with the cuboid group.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective comparative study.